The July 28, 2025 ceasefire agreement between Thailand and Cambodia, brokered by Malaysia as the current Chair of ASEAN, marks a crucial step toward de-escalating tensions in mainland Southeast Asia.
The commitment to an immediate
and unconditional halt to hostilities came after an emergency meeting in
Putrajaya, where Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim successfully
brought both nations to the negotiating table.
With a midnight ceasefire,
informal military talks set for the following morning, and a General Border
Committee meeting planned for August 4 in Cambodia, the diplomatic structure
laid out is sound. Yet this development should not be viewed in isolation.
It presents ASEAN with a broader
test: Can the region maintain its independence and stability amid growing
strategic rivalry between global powers, particularly the United States and
China?
The ceasefire highlights ASEAN’s
capacity to resolve intra-regional disputes through its traditional
consensus-driven and non-interventionist principles. Malaysia’s leadership
reflects a long-standing commitment to diplomacy over confrontation, and the quick
resolution suggests that ASEAN can still provide timely responses to potential
flashpoints.
However, the ceasefire also
brings into focus the growing geopolitical complexity facing Southeast Asia.
While the conflict itself was between two ASEAN member states, the broader
strategic context defined by intensifying competition between Washington and
Beijing cannot be ignored.
Southeast Asia sits at the epicentre
of the Indo-Pacific, a region increasingly seen as a stage for power projection
by both the United States and China. From the South China Sea to the Strait of
Malacca, the region holds vital economic and strategic importance.
As a result, even local conflicts
especially those involving territorial disputes can become proxies or leverage
points in the larger geopolitical game. In this environment, ASEAN’s internal
disputes risk being instrumentalized by outside powers unless carefully managed
and transparently mediated.
That is why the exclusion of
major powers like the U.S. and China from the ceasefire process, while
consistent with ASEAN’s emphasis on regional autonomy, raises difficult
questions.
Should external stakeholders be
entirely shut out, or could their limited inclusion serve to reduce suspicion
and prevent covert interference?
While ASEAN’s instinct is to
shield itself from external influence, its current context demands more nuanced
thinking. Rather than barring external powers entirely, ASEAN should explore
mechanisms to involve them in limited, non-intrusive ways such as observers or
contributors to technical and verification frameworks while maintaining full
leadership over the process.
This approach is not about
inviting interference but rather pre-emptively managing it. Transparency often
reduces the temptation for unilateral action or clandestine support for one
party over another.
Allowing both the United States
and China to witness or engage in confidence-building processes under ASEAN’s
terms may limit their ability to exploit divisions for strategic gain.
In effect, it turns ASEAN’s
centrality from a defensive position into a proactive strategy, one that
asserts regional ownership while acknowledging the realities of global power
politics.
The lessons of the past are
instructive. During the Cold War, Southeast Asia became a theatre for proxy
conflicts. The Vietnam War, in particular, began as a national issue but
quickly escalated into a brutal international conflict, drawing in both superpowers
and devastating neighbouring Cambodia and Laos.
These countries suffered
immensely not because of internal dynamics alone, but because global
ideological rivalries hijacked local conflicts. Today, the conditions are
different, but the risk of repetition remains.
With rising tensions over Taiwan,
the militarization of the South China Sea, and economic competition hardening
into strategic confrontation, Southeast Asia could again find itself caught in
the middle.
To avoid repeating history, ASEAN
must actively prevent regional conflicts from becoming footholds for external
power projection. This means designing inclusive ceasefire mechanisms that
guard against political exploitation while enhancing legitimacy. In the current
situation between Thailand and Cambodia, the observer mission led by Malaysia
offers an opening.
ASEAN could invite
representatives from dialogue partners like the U.S., China, Japan, and the EU
to participate as neutral observers without decision-making power under a
carefully defined mandate. Their inclusion would provide reassurance to the
international community, minimize backdoor involvement, and reinforce ASEAN’s
credibility as a stabilizing force.
Malaysia, in particular, is
well-positioned to lead this balancing act. With its history of effective
mediation, strong bilateral ties across the region, and diplomatic
independence, it can articulate an ASEAN vision that combines principled
neutrality with strategic engagement.
As Chair, Malaysia should push
for the development of a robust verification and monitoring mechanism that not
only ensures compliance with the ceasefire but also incorporates early-warning
tools, third-party reporting, and transparent communication with global
partners.
The Putrajaya ceasefire is an
opportunity for ASEAN to reaffirm its role as the centre of gravity in the
Indo-Pacific. It is a reminder that peace in the region must be locally driven,
but globally aware. Ignoring the presence of great powers does not eliminate
their influence it only invites it to emerge in less visible, potentially more
dangerous ways.
In a nutshell, ASEAN’s handling
of the Thailand-Cambodia ceasefire is more than a matter of border stability;
it is a test of the region’s strategic maturity.
By creating a ceasefire process
that is transparent, inclusive in limited ways, and led entirely by ASEAN, the
organization can protect its sovereignty while reducing the risks of becoming a
battleground for global rivalry.
Malaysia’s role as Chair gives it
the platform to lead with clarity, caution, and conviction. The future of
Southeast Asia depends not only on ending conflicts but on ensuring they are
never manipulated by powers that seek to divide rather than unite.
Kuala Lumpur.
28.07.2025
https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/750456
Comments